Filed 3/25/22 P. v. Osorio CA1/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

Between 2017 and 2018, appellant Ismael Sesam Osorio, who was over 30 years old, had a sexual relationship with a minor female.

On March 4, 2020, the San Mateo District Attorney filed an information charging Osorio with seven felony offenses: unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor more than three years younger than him (Pen. Code, § 261.5, subd. (c), counts 1, 4, 5, and 6); oral copulation of a person under 18 (Pen. Code, § 287, subd. (b)(1), count 2); forcible oral copulation of a minor victim over 14 (Pen. Code, § 287, subd. (c)(2)(C), count 3); and possession of child or youth pornography (Pen. Code, § 311.11, subd. (a), count 7).

On February 8, 2021, Osorio, having waived his rights, plead no contest to count one. The remaining charges were dismissed in the negotiated plea.

On June 14, 2021, the trial court rejected Osorio’s request to be sentenced to supervised probation and sentenced him to the low term of 16 months in county jail while awarding him presentence custody credits. The court also ordered Osorio to register as a sex offender for a 10-year period pursuant to Penal Code section 290 and to pay restitution and other fines. In addition, the court issued a no-contact order prohibiting Osorio from contacting the minor female for 10 years. That same day, Osorio filed a notice of appeal, checking the box on the Judicial Council form that the appeal was based on “the sentence or other matters occurring after the plea that do not affect the validity of the plea.”

Appellate counsel has filed a brief asking us to independently review the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. Appellate counsel has averred defendant was advised of his right to file a supplemental brief, but he has not filed such a brief. Having independently reviewed the record, we conclude there are no issues that require further briefing and affirm the judgment.

Disposition

The judgment is affirmed.

_________________________

Petrou, J.

WE CONCUR:

_________________________

Tucher, P.J.

_________________________

Rodríguez, J.

A162881/People v. Osorio